Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Release Process] Major vs. Minor (vs. Patch) releases #16

Closed
RobDolinMS opened this issue Jun 10, 2016 · 9 comments
Closed

[Release Process] Major vs. Minor (vs. Patch) releases #16

RobDolinMS opened this issue Jun 10, 2016 · 9 comments

Comments

@RobDolinMS
Copy link
Contributor

The OCI Release Process should differentiate between major and minor releases.

Possibly longer waiting period and higher threshold for consensus for major (vs. minor)

/cc @philips
@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Jun 10, 2016

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 06:18:56AM -0700, Rob Dolin (MSFT) wrote:

The OCI Release Process should differentiate between major and minor
releases.

I'm less sure about this, although it depends on which spec-consumer
the SemVer is aimed at (runtime maintainers or config authors /
runtime callers) 1.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Jun 10, 2016

And while I think these sub-issues around ideas from #15 are a great
idea for focusing discussion, we should probably make new ones in the
project-template repository [1,2,3,4]. It's possible that
@diogomonica remains unconvinced since his only comments suggest TOB
jurisdiction [5,6], but as I understand it his main reasoning is “this
is an opencontainers/tob PR” 6.

@RobDolinMS
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wking A major release has intellectual property implications for OCI member companies [1]. It would be good to have differentiated bars for a minor release (which might be done on a date-driven cadence) and a major release.

[1] Section 8.d. of https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Jun 10, 2016

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 08:42:46AM -0700, Rob Dolin (MSFT) wrote:

A major release has intellectual property implications for OCI
member companies 1…

1 Section 8.d. of https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance

I don't see any major/minor wording in that (it's just “finalization
and release of a new version”) or [1] (which just has a field for the
spec/version being covered. If the intention is to make a major/minor
distinction in terms of obligations, that should probably go in as a
charter change.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jun 10, 2016

@RobDolinMS Both you and Stephen have raised the concern that the current proposal is insufficient: 3 week minimum with weeks added automatically when changes are made. Can you tell me what you feel the right minimum to set is and why for each of these processes?

I proposed the setup because I assumed at least some level of conversation would happen during the process and the three week minimum was very unlikely to happen in practice. But, in the optimistic case where all of the stake holders know what is happening because of the better release communication to dev@ that there would be an acceptable "happy path" that would cause some level of urgency to ensure people pay attention. Maybe 4 weeks would be more reasonable? Three RCs a minimum of 1 week apart?

So, maybe you can talk through your thought process? I would be happy to add some time, I want to try to get to some consensus and have some reasoning behind it.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jun 10, 2016

@RobDolinMS What I would like to encourage is early communication and regular forward progress. What I want to avoid is everyone chiming in only on the final RC because this is the "one that counts".

@wking wking mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2016
Closed
@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jun 14, 2016

@RobDolinMS tried to add some motivation around the process to help explain: 1e3b643

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Jun 16, 2016

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 09:31:40AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 08:42:46AM -0700, Rob Dolin (MSFT) wrote:

A major release has intellectual property implications for OCI
member companies 1…

1 Section 8.d. of https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance

I don't see any major/minor wording in that…

Ah, the major/minor distinction is in §8.e:

Each new version of the specification will be designated by a change
in the number to the left of the decimal point (x in an x.y format
where y designates interim update releases).

That's not SemVer, where a minor release marks the addition of a new,
backwards-compatible feature 1. And “new feature” seems like the
trigger for patent concerns, not “backwards-incompatible change”. So
I still think we need a charter update to get OFWa patent grants for
major and minor bumps (but probably not bugfix bumps). But my earlier
“I don't see a major/minor distinction in the charter” was incorrect.

wking added a commit to wking/opencontainers-tob that referenced this issue Jun 25, 2016
@wking
project-governance: Make voting more generic
984d960 
This is useful for more than release approval.  For example, it's
useful for updating the project governance document itself [1].

I've also tried to address Jason's other points, except for defining a
"breaking change" (since that is tied up in [2]).

New wording about motions and whatnot is pulled from Roberts' [3], see
proposing a motion (RRoO I.4, p33) and seconding a motion (RRoO I.5,
p36).

The subject templates I just made up on my own after thinking over the
initial proposal emails (e.g. [4]).  I also pulled in the one-sentence
pattern [5] since I was touching so much.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/Zx1JUStXBAAJ
     Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:58:58 -0700
     Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ_MromgpQ4qHCQ3R9_NwZNYBX5w@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers#16
[3]: http://archive.org/details/Robertsrulesofor00robe_201303
[4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us
     Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000
     Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQBwX8VA@mail.gmail.com>
[5]: opencontainers#15 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
@wking wking mentioned this issue Jun 25, 2016
Open
philips pushed a commit to philips/project-template that referenced this issue Jun 29, 2016
@wking
project-governance: Make voting more generic
cc998d7 
This is useful for more than release approval.  For example, it's
useful for updating the project governance document itself [1].

I've also tried to address Jason's other points, except for defining a
"breaking change" (since that is tied up in [2]).

New wording about motions and whatnot is pulled from Roberts' [3], see
proposing a motion (RRoO I.4, p33) and seconding a motion (RRoO I.5,
p36).

The subject templates I just made up on my own after thinking over the
initial proposal emails (e.g. [4]).  I also pulled in the one-sentence
pattern [5] since I was touching so much.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/Zx1JUStXBAAJ
     Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:58:58 -0700
     Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ_MromgpQ4qHCQ3R9_NwZNYBX5w@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/tob#16
[3]: http://archive.org/details/Robertsrulesofor00robe_201303
[4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us
     Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000
     Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQBwX8VA@mail.gmail.com>
[5]: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
@wking wking mentioned this issue Jul 12, 2016
Merged
philips pushed a commit to philips/project-template that referenced this issue Jul 12, 2016
@wking
project-governance: Make voting more generic
c732cc2 
This is useful for more than release approval. For example, it's
useful for updating the project governance document itself [1].

I've also tried to address Jason's other points, except for defining a
"breaking change" (since that is tied up in [2]).

New wording about motions and whatnot is pulled from Roberts' [3], see
proposing a motion (RRoO I.4, p33) and seconding a motion (RRoO I.5,
p36).

The subject templates I just made up on my own after thinking over the
initial proposal emails (e.g. [4]). I also pulled in the one-sentence
pattern [5] since I was touching so much.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/Zx1JUStXBAAJ
     Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:58:58 -0700
     Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ_MromgpQ4qHCQ3R9_NwZNYBX5w@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/tob#16
[3]: http://archive.org/details/Robertsrulesofor00robe_201303
[4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us
     Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
     Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000
     Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQBwX8VA@mail.gmail.com>
[5]: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
This was referenced Jul 19, 2016
Closed
Merged
@RobDolinMS
Copy link
Contributor Author

The Releases process defines waiting period for major releases: https://github.com/opencontainers/project-template/blob/master/RELEASES.md

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@philips @wking @RobDolinMS